or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "Myth debunking" article reinforces myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Myth debunking" article reinforces myths

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=31491

Quote:
Circumcision is genital mutilation. "I don't have a lot of patience for people who compare circumcision to genital mutilation," McNamara says. "It's different. You're removing the foreskin. You're not actually removing part of the sexual organ."
Can a doctor really believe that the foreskin, frenulum, etc., are not part of the sexual organ? Incredible. Through creative semantics, she devalues unique penile structures and declares intact man have some kind of foreign object clinging to, but not part of, their sex organ. Hey doc, if it's not part of the sex organ, what is it part of?

Quote:
Circumcision was introduced to our culture in an attempt to eliminate masturbation. "Last time I checked people who have been circumcised still masturbate," Baskin says.
Nobody said it worked, doc, but the historical record shows unambiguously that curbing masturbation was a major reason given for circumcising.

University of California at San Francisco pediatric urologist Larry Baskin and general pediatrician Meg McNamara are, apparently, ill informed.

What author Amy Graff may not have understood is that asking a couple of American doctors is a dubious way to debunk myths about circumcision.
post #2 of 6
I really felt like my head would burst reading that article.. ugh ugh ugh...

I have no words.
post #3 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensemble View Post
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=31491



Can a doctor really believe that the foreskin, frenulum, etc., are not part of the sexual organ? Incredible. Through creative semantics, she devalues unique penile structures and declares intact man have some kind of foreign object clinging to, but not part of, their sex organ. Hey doc, if it's not part of the sex organ, what is it part of?



Nobody said it worked, doc, but the historical record shows unambiguously that curbing masturbation was a major reason given for circumcising.

University of California at San Francisco pediatric urologist Larry Baskin and general pediatrician Meg McNamara are, apparently, ill informed.

What author Amy Graff may not have understood is that asking a couple of American doctors is a dubious way to debunk myths about circumcision.

I actually kind of like this article. Its so crazy it actually made me laugh a bit. I think I could show it to friends and it would help them see how crazy and illogical the pro-circ mind set really is.

Not part of the sexual organ, lol. Like Ensemble said, what is it a part of then?
post #4 of 6
"You really should make your decision based on religious, cultural, and social reasons--not medical."

From a doctor. That's priceless.
post #5 of 6
That article was completely insane! Full of crazy quotes - the not part of the penis one, not a medical decision one and incorrect on the masturbation front. I really hope nobody reads that seriously, though hopefully it might make a few people think there are no medical benefits.
post #6 of 6
Great responses everyone. How infuriating.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "Myth debunking" article reinforces myths